Iain Duncan Smith: Clearly, we do not, as the hon. Lady makes out, want to make anybody face any further induced couple penalties. Our plan is to ensure—over a period time, but particularly in this Parliament—that we work to erode the couple penalty. However, it is worth reminding her specifically what happened under
	the previous Government, because the baseline that we have accepted is important. The OECD pointed out that a couple needed about 75% of the income of two single people, but the previous Government left them only 60% of those earnings. In other words, the previous Government took far more from couples than most other countries did. That is why we are in difficulty. She should reflect on that when she asks such questions.

Chris Grayling: I do indeed agree. Those schools, the increased numbers of apprenticeships, the work experience scheme, the support being provided through the Work
	programme and the additional measures we have announced recently to support 16 to 18-years all show that we have a Government who recognise the problem of youth unemployment, understand its severity and are doing something about it.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the anomalies of the European system which is causing concern not just in this country, but in other capitals around Europe. I have had many conversations in the last few months with fellow employment Ministers in other EU countries, and there is a mounting debate about the need for rule changes that will set out exactly when and where benefits should and should not be paid.

Chris Grayling: The issue of youth unemployment is one that he would know, if he had listened to my earlier answer, is of great importance to this Government and the nation. We are taking urgent steps to seek to address it.

Iain Duncan Smith: There is a huge amount of evidence. Two of the main providers are voluntary sector based and getting on for half of all the subcontractors in the programme will be from the voluntary sector. This will be the biggest boost to the idea of the big society. Now that we hear Labour Members are rethinking on welfare, we hope that they will have some good things to say about it.

Teresa Pearce: Members have already raised the issue of women born in 1954 who must wait for an extra two years to receive their pensions, but those who have small occupational pensions paid for and planned for on the basis of the earlier retirement date and who then find themselves out of work before the later date will be adversely affected in terms of jobseeker’s allowance. Will the Minister review the rule and, specifically, the way in which it relates to those disadvantaged women?

Steve Webb: We recognise that it is a nonsense for one part of the benefits system to lend people money to deal with the fact that they have not received benefits from another part of it on time. The whole business of alignment payments has become completely out of control. Under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s universal credit scheme, the matter will be dealt with through advance payments of the credit. Clearly the idea that people can have multiple crises—up to 10 a year—does not produce a rational system, which is the reason for our reform.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are, of course, aware that there is a major Bill before Parliament proposing huge changes in the national health service. It has been announced in the press today that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are to hold a staged event at 12 noon tomorrow to announce the changes that they intend to make in that Bill. Is it not utterly unacceptable, particularly when a Bill is before the House of Commons, for announcements about what is to be done to that Bill to be made two and a half hours before the House sits? Do you not agree that that statement should be made first to the House of Commons, and that this stunt should be called off?

Grahame Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the NHS Future Forum report on the listening exercise for the Health and Social Care Bill, have you had any indication from the Secretary of State or the Government business managers when they intend to end the pause in the Bill’s progress, and whether it will be recommitted to a Public Bill Committee of MPs to allow proper scrutiny of the proposed changes and to allow the Labour party, which formed the NHS, to have a say on those important matters?

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 9 March 2011 (Welfare Reform Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
	3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
	4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 TABLE 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of Proceedings 
			 First dayNew Clauses and amendments relating to recovery by deduction from earnings; New Clauses relating to Part 1; new Schedules relating to Part 1; amendments to Clauses 1 to 31; amendments to Schedule 1; amendments to Clause 32; amendments to Schedule 2; amendments to Clauses 33 and 34; amendments to Schedule 3; amendments to Clause 35; amendments to Schedule 4; amendments to Clause 36; amendments to Schedule 5; amendments to Clause 37; amendments to Schedule 6; amendments to Clauses 38 to 43; new Clauses relating to Part 2; new Schedules relating to Part 2; amendments to Clauses 44 to 48; amendments to Schedule 7; amendments to Clauses 49 to 62; new Clauses relating to industrial injuries benefit or housing benefit; new Schedules relating to industrial injuries benefit or housing benefit; amendments to Clauses 63 to 68. 10.00 pm 
			 Second dayNew Clauses relating to the social fund or state pension credit; New Schedules relating to the social fund or state pension credit; amendments to Clause 69; amendments to Schedule 8; amendments to Clauses 70 to 74; new Clauses relating to Part 4; new Schedules relating to Part 4; amendments to Clauses 75 to 88; amendments to Schedule 9; amendments to Clauses 89 and 90; amendments to Schedule 10; amendments to Clauses 91 and 92; remaining new Clauses relating to Part 5; new Schedules relating to Part 5; amendments to Clauses 93 to 99; amendments to Schedule 11; amendments to Clause 100; amendments to Schedule 12; amendments to Clauses 101 to 128 (other than those relating to recovery by deduction from earnings); new Clauses relating to Part 6; new Schedules relating to Part 6; amendments to Clauses 129 to 135; amendments to Schedule 13; new Clauses relating to Part 7; new Schedules relating to Part 7; amendments to Clause 136; amendments to Schedule 14 (other than those relating to recovery by deduction from earnings); amendments to Clauses 137 to 140; remaining proceedings on Consideration. 6.00 pm 
		
	
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm on the second day.
	Let me speak briefly on the programme motion. As Members will see, we have set out a plan to carry out Report and Third Reading over two days, commencing now until 10 pm tonight and resuming after Prime
	Minister’s questions and any other business that takes place during the day on Wednesday, with Third Reading, as is normal, taking place an hour before the end of the day.
	These two days follow a lengthy and constructive debate in Committee during which, unusually, we managed to cover every clause in the Bill. I fear I cannot offer the Opposition quite the same latitude on Report, although I know they will want to raise a number of issues on this crucial matter. It is welcome to note the intervention about the Government’s position made today—albeit that it was rather confusing—by the shadow Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, and indeed the intervention made today by the Leader of the Opposition on the Opposition’s position on welfare reform.
	I hope that over the next two days we will see some evidence emerge on what line the Opposition will take, whether they will be for us or against us on the benefit cap, and whether they have decided to back us on a number of the other reforms we have proposed. They have been somewhat ambiguous in parts of the debate in Committee about whether they support us, and I hope we will reach the end of the programmed debate on Wednesday and find that they support the Bill on Third Reading. I hope that the two days we have set aside will allow us to debate all the key areas for discussion in the Bill and that it will become a little clearer whether, when it comes down to the final decisions, the Opposition are with us or against us on those key matters. I look forward to two days of lengthy, interesting and perhaps enlightening— in respect of the Opposition’s policies—debate on these matters.

Chris Grayling: That would depend on the circumstances. It is obviously important that a deduction of earnings take into account the potential impact on the individual, so we would need to take into account other payments. Ultimately, it is a basic principle that recovery of overpaid benefits should not cause undue hardship, so all circumstances would need to be taken into account. I should clarify that council tax benefit will be deducted from council tax liability, so it will not be administered in quite the same way.
	Imposing a DEA is intended to be an administratively simple process that replaces the current practice of obtaining an attachment of earnings order by application to the court. The ability of the Department for Work and Pensions to make DEAs on its own authority sends out a strong signal to potential fraudsters and will prove a useful tool in the fraud and error strategy. I hope, particularly given the comments made today by the Leader of the Opposition, that the Opposition will welcome this as a sensible measure to take against people who defraud the system.
	We think that the measures will also encourage claimants in debt to be more aware of the possibility of deduction at source, reducing any expectation that they will avoid repaying debt. There is always a concern that they will think that they can just pile money up and up, and that there will be no day of reckoning. The proposals make it much simpler for us to ensure that there is indeed a day of reckoning.
	The measure will make use of an existing process used by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, with which businesses are already familiar. It is a matter of routine for an employer to make a child maintenance-related deduction from a person’s salary cheque each month, and this measure will use the same process. The provision also allows for the levy of an administration charge against the debtor by the employer administering the deduction, offsetting any increased administrative costs resulting from the increased use of earnings attachment as a recovery method.
	Using a DEA to recover debt does not remove a debtor’s rights to challenge any decision relating to the recovery of benefits or the imposition of a civil penalty. This relates to the point just raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). For example, when an overpayment occurs in relation to an award, an
	independent decision maker decides whether a recoverable overpayment exists. As I set out in Committee, there are circumstances in which overpayments will be recovered, and circumstances in which they will not. We will focus on offering discretion to our front-line staff in judging what is right and what is wrong. We accept that there will be times when an overpayment results from an administrative error within the Department, and that we should accept the blame for that and not seek recovery of the overpayment. The general position, however, is that if someone receives money that they should not have received, we will expect them to pay it back. If they refuse and have already started work, this mechanism will enable us to recover the money.
	In addition, there will be a right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal, should the person be unhappy with the original decision. So there is still a full judicial process available, similar to the one available when a sanction is imposed that could lead to the withdrawal of benefits. The claimant has the right first to go to the decision maker and then to a tribunal, and those rights will remain in this situation. However, we will not have to go to court to secure the original order to make a deduction of earnings.
	Before taking action to impose a DEA, we will ensure that the debtor is aware that we are taking such action. We are also keen to remain mindful of our welfare obligations. We do not, for instance, want to push the debtor into leaving work in order to avoid a repayment under a DEA. This measure must be applied with common sense and care. In certain instances, it might be determined that another method of recovery should be employed, or that arrangements should be made so that the DEA commences only after other commitments have been cleared. This relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) raised a moment ago: we will take into account other commitments.
	The DEA is designed to recover debt from those who currently seek to avoid repayment—those who hope that they can avoid paying the money back. Those who comply with requests for repayment and who either come to a reasonable arrangement to repay or can show that they are currently unable to repay will not have a DEA imposed. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that when someone refuses to meet their obligations to repay benefit debt, such powers should be available to the relevant authorities to make recovery.
	That is all that the new clause and the other amendments are designed to do. They are designed to ensure that we treat people fairly and appropriately within the system. When necessary we can recover benefits directly from people who are still on benefits, but we cannot currently do that easily, without going to court, from people who have moved into PAYE employment. These provisions will allow us to change that. I believe that this is a prudent and sensible step. It is very much in keeping with our anti-fraud strategy, and I hope that it will be in keeping with that of the Opposition as well. I hope that the new clause will command support on both sides of the House.

Chris Grayling: I start by saying that I very much appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I listened carefully to her points, a number of which she made in Committee. She has given a great deal of thought to these matters, and although I cannot offer her a guarantee that we will do all the things she wishes, I can say to her that we will take great care, in the regulations attached to the Bill, to ensure that we get the right balance. It has been clear for a long time in this country, and remains absolutely clear under the current Government, that in setting the levels of any deduction we have to be extremely careful not to tip people into hardship. In particular, we must not encourage them to leave work and end up moving them and their families down the poverty scale.
	The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked how we would determine the level of earnings below which deductions for overpayments cannot be made. Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and the circumstances of different families are very different. There may be a case in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) suggested, there is a deduction for child support, or the number of children in a family or a disability may be factors. Great care therefore has to be exercised.
	The minimum level that we will pursue will be determined so as to ensure that the debtor is left with sufficient income to maintain themselves and their family, in line with similar provisions in the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. We therefore plan to use the same basis that the previous Government used—for example, to determine deductions from benefit payments.
	In many cases, however, a direct earnings attachment will be implemented with little negotiation with the debtor. There will be a prescribed minimum level that will not take account of individual circumstances. We will try to create a system whereby we are mindful of the need to reflect the circumstances of the individual, but we cannot go the whole way, and we certainly cannot go quite as far as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston would wish.
	If a debtor finds that they are unable to cope with the deductions being made from their earnings, they should contact us to discuss an alternative payment rate. Of course, they can avoid being placed in that situation, bearing in mind that we are discussing not people who are struggling to deal with something that they have already agreed but those who have wilfully refused to enter an agreement with us and are basically saying, “I’m not paying the money back”, or who have not even got to the point of saying anything to us at all.
	Debtors who are repaying their overpayment by means of a direct earnings attachment will, in line with those repaying by other methods, be able to claim that the repayment rate causes them hardship and ask for it to be reduced. Although we of course have a responsibility to recover overpayments in order to protect public funds, we also take into account an individual’s financial and personal circumstances. The hon. Lady articulated a strong case for her points, but I cannot offer her quite as much as she would wish. However, I can offer her an assurance that we will always take an individual’s circumstances into account, particular where poverty, deprivation and hardship could arise.
	The right hon. Member for East Ham made a point about employers. We will, of course, use the same mechanism for the attachment orders in the Bill as is used for child maintenance deductions. That process is well established through the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission system, and prior to that through the Child Support Agency, so it should not cause employers to recast their processes and do things very differently. On that basis, I am confident that it should not represent a significant additional burden on employers.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the provision for a £1,000 fine. In truth, there is no excuse for a refusal to engage in any part of the process. The orders will arise only because an individual claimant has refused to engage, and there is no real excuse for an employer to refuse to engage either. The matter should not be complicated, and it certainly should not be complex enough to cause an employer to decline an expansion in business or a recruitment to fill a vacancy. The process is established and many employers up and down the country are used to dealing with it, and I do not believe there will be significant extra burden on business.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked how much employers could deduct for the administration charge, and the answer is an amount not in excess of £1 for each deduction. He asked for an assurance that the measure will not damage work incentives. The answer to that is that, as with all debt recovery, we must of course be mindful of the Department’s welfare obligations. As I said, recovery of overpaid benefits should not cause undue hardship. In the calculation of a repayment, we certainly would not want to push someone into a position in which they have to leave work to avoid payment under a DEA.
	The operation of the DEA does not mean that the debtor will commence the repayment of their debt earlier than they would under another repayment method. The debtor will have had ample opportunity to make other arrangements to pay, or indeed to show that
	suspension of recovery was applicable in their case. We are not talking about people who have had no chance to engage and discuss.

Chris Grayling: It is very difficult to give an absolute answer to that question. It is unlikely that we would seek to withdraw an entire pay rise, but clearly, if we had given somebody a lot of slack in making their repayments, and their financial circumstances improved, we would not allow them simply to continue paying at the hardship rate that they had previously paid. We would expect an improvement in the terms based on their improved circumstances.
	The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister, knows the reality. Well established hardship considerations are in place. If the customer engages with the Department, their circumstances could suggest that another method of recovery should be employed. Arrangements are made so that the DEA begins only after a period time, but only in exceptional circumstances would we waiver repayment.
	Common sense lies at the heart of this measure. It is our job to recover funds that have been overpaid to a claimant when there is not a good reason for waiving the repayment because of departmental error. At the same time, it is not in any of our interests for the system to force people into severe hardship and poverty—the system should reflect the reality of people’s financial situations.
	There is a clear obligation to repay. The Leader of the Opposition spoke this morning of responsibility, and he was right to do so. Those who we are talking about have a responsibility to repay the money that is due to us. However, the Department, and indeed the courts, must apply common sense to the process, achieve the right balance and ensure that we recover the money that is due to the taxpayer correctly and sensibly.
	I welcome the Opposition spokesman’s positive comments. We are likely to have livelier debates as the hours go by, although I hope, having heard the Leader of the Opposition’s comments this morning, that such debate masks their willingness to support the Bill. It would be disappointing if the Opposition did not support the Bill. If they decline to support it, I will look forward to having a debate in public on who is right and who is wrong, but for now I am delighted that there is cross-party co-operation on this group of amendments and the new clause.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 1 accordingly read a Second  time , and added to the Bill.

Chris Grayling: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will try to catch Mr Speaker’s eye in a moment to answer questions, but for now, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can answer one for me. As different schools today use different systems—some use fingerprinting, some use an electronic card system and some still use cash—does he envisage his proposal requiring schools up and down the country to scrap their current systems and have a new, harmonised system? If so, has he calculated what the cost of that system would be and how long it would take to introduce?

Stephen Timms: I very much hope that the Government are working out the answers to those questions. I would certainly aim for using existing systems, with the addition of payment via universal credit to simplify the transition.

Stephen Timms: The point is that it is a zero-cost proposal; I am simply suggesting that the funding would be provided through the mechanism that I have described. It would be tapered away, along with the rest of universal credit, and would sit naturally on top of existing payments, so that there would be just an additional payment in respect of school meals, where appropriate, which would then be tapered away once the disregard had been exhausted. The budgetary cost would be exactly the same.
	We have exactly the same issue with free prescriptions. The current system provides them to people on benefits and to some people with low incomes through the HC2 form, but once again, we have heard nothing from the Government about what will happen in universal credit. Our new clause 4 addresses that.
	By the way, it is perhaps worth making the point in passing that the number of pupils receiving free school meals is an important indicator for education policy as well. The pupil premium depends on the number of people receiving free school meals. The fact that we have no idea at all who will be entitled to free school meals under the Government’s proposals will create serious problems with that, too.

Stephen Timms: Certainly the Bill should encourage aspiration, but if it prevents people from saving in the way that I have described, as clause 5 will, it will undermine aspiration. That is the point: we want to change the Bill so that it will allow people, even those on universal credit, to save. We believe that everyone should be encouraged to save, rather than being punished for having saved.
	The Secretary of State used to agree with us. In 2008, he said that
	“poverty is not just about how little you earn; it’s also about how little you own.”
	If we want people to work their way out of poverty in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggests—and I agree with him about that—we need to offer them the chance to save. I am afraid that if the Government press ahead with making saving on a low income impossible, the phrase “compassionate conservatism” will be revealed as a sham.
	For similar reasons, I hope that Members on the Government Benches will share my concern about the Bill’s discouragement to self-employment. Schedule 1 provides for a minimum income floor when calculating universal credit for self-employed people. Under that provision, Ministers are making the assumption that self-employed people will be earning at least the minimum wage for every hour they work, but anyone with even a passing knowledge of what is involved in starting up in self-employment will know that that is absurd. While establishing their business, many self-employed people work extraordinarily long hours and earn hardly anything at all, and their income fluctuates hugely month by month. It is absurd to assume that they will earn the minimum wage for every hour they work, and that they
	should therefore have their universal credit reduced accordingly. That is why the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that this new system will be much less supportive of self-employment than the current one.
	Our amendment 27 therefore seeks to align the universal credit definitions of income for self-employed people with those used in the tax system and in tax credits. The Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low incomes tax reform group has pointed out that allowances are made in the tax credit system for investment in business assets and equipment and for trading losses that can be set against other income or the profits on later periods of trading. Those arrangements reflect the reality of being self-employed. The idea that the self-employed are earning at least the minimum wage for every hour they work in self-employment is a complete illusion, and if the Bill is not amended it will destroy the very effective support that the tax credit system currently offers to self-employment.

Stephen Timms: I am not clear whether or not the hon. Gentleman supports the fact that we have had 100% capital allowances recently, although I hope he does. When the downturn hit, they were introduced for very good reason, which was to encourage enterprise and investment, particularly on the part of small businesses.
	One of the problems with the Bill is that in many cases self-employed people will be strongly pressured to lie about the hours they have worked. They are not going to admit to having worked 18 hours a day, as some are doing, because they will then lose pound for pound from their universal credit, as it will be assumed that for every one of those 18 hours they have earned at least the minimum wage. This is a bad policy and it needs to be changed.
	Amendment 33 may cause some puzzlement. Many people will not know that the Government intend to remove pension credit from people over pensionable age who have a spouse under pensionable age. That has not been announced anywhere and the Pensions Minister has not stood up to tell us about it. We find it buried in, of all places, the middle of schedule 2, on page 114 of this Bill. If the older person were living alone, they would receive pension credit. Those people will in future be penalised because they have a younger spouse. This is a new couples penalty, but we have been assured that the Conservative party wanted to stamp out such penalties. Indeed, the Secretary of State said, once again, in DWP questions earlier that he wanted to remove couples penalties from the system—but here he is inventing a new one. That will change the pension entitlements for some couples with very little notice and, in some cases, by a substantial sum. If Ministers want to change the arrangements for pension credit, they should set that out openly, the provisions should be made in the Pensions Bill and there should be full discussion of the change. They should certainly not try to sneak it past us in the second schedule to this Bill.
	We have now established that of the 610,000 recipients of pension credit with a partner, almost 100,000 have a partner aged under 60. The difference between the couple rate for jobseeker’s allowance and the pension credit rate is more than £100 a week, so for each year that a couple is in receipt of JSA rather than pension credit, those couples stand to lose more than £5,000.

Stephen Timms: In government, we set out the arrangements for pension credit as they stand. In our view, those arrangements made sense. If the Government want to make a case for changing those arrangements, I simply suggest that they need to announce that change and to stand up openly and say that they have decided that in future people cannot have pension credit if their spouse is under pensionable age. We could then have a debate. I would have thought that such a measure ought to be in the Pensions Bill. The Minister is right that we were able to spot the change in Committee and to discuss it then, but this is certainly not an example of the Government’s being open—far from it. They seem to have hoped that they would slip this measure through and nobody would notice.
	For those couples for whom there is a substantial age gap—in 40% of those cases, the partner will be younger than 55, so the gap will be more than five years—this measure could represent an enormous cumulative loss of £5,000 a year for five years or more.

Charlie Elphicke: I am a little unclear about whether the right hon. Gentleman’s position is that this measure is wrong in principle and he disagrees with it, or he agrees with it but thinks it should have been announced with fanfare. Will he explain which it is?

Charlie Elphicke: I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, as I did in Committee when he made that point, that this Government’s approach to IT is far more thought through and better planned that the approach taken by the previous Government, who spent vast amounts of money without any consideration for the end, route or purpose of the policy. This Government are being far more direct and should get the IT ready on time and on budget.

Stephen Timms: I look forward to reminding the hon. Gentleman of that comment in September 2013.
	The intention of universal credit is that work should always pay. Without decisions and policies on child care or passported benefits, we cannot know whether work will always pay, and all the indications are that the Government will in due course, when they finally put a policy together, introduce one that will mean that for many work will no longer pay.
	On savings, I am afraid that the Government are heading to crush the hopes of many people in work. On the self employed, the Government will crush the hopes of many who want to set up their own businesses. As Policy Exchange recently argued in its report, universal credit has been oversold by Ministers. I very much hope that the House will support our amendments so that universal credit can support the aspirations of families across the country.

Chris Grayling: The technical response to that is, “You wish!” I remember many occasions on which we came to a debate and asked what the Labour Government were planning to do. Did we ever get an answer? Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman and I have different memories of the way things were.
	It is important to remember that this Bill creates a structure for universal credit, and that the details will be set out in regulations. The Opposition amendments relate mainly to issues that will be dealt with in regulations, and which do not affect the structure of universal credit as set out in the Bill.
	I have accepted certain recommendations from the Opposition. The Bill as introduced provided that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. In Committee it was suggested that that would not provide the right level of parliamentary scrutiny and control. The right hon. Member for East Ham identified a number of provisions that he thought should be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I gave a commitment in Committee on 28 April to consider those provisions carefully.
	There are two provisions, in clauses 22 and 25, relating to conditionality, for which we do not think the affirmative procedure is appropriate, because they do not introduce new principles. Although we intend that regulations will be much less prescriptive than the current jobseeker’s allowance regulations, the powers in the Bill will be used to create a regime for jobseekers that is broadly similar to the current one. We have therefore formed the view that there is no necessity to subject those two to the affirmative resolution procedure. Of course, it always remains within the gift of Opposition Members to pray against regulations if they want a matter to be debated. They could, of course, do so anyway, but we are making their life a bit easier by providing for the affirmative procedure.
	I have thought long and hard, and apart from those two specific provisions I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that regulations should be made under the affirmative procedure in the first instance. I say “in the first instance” because it does not seem sensible to repeat the process year in, year out when the regulations are regularly renewed.
	As set out in amendment 14, that principle covers all the key regulation-making powers relating to the universal credit, including the rules on capital, the calculation of income, the treatment of self-employed people’s cases, and the amounts of the elements within an award, including those for disabled children, housing and child care. Opposition Members might say that that is not enough to allay the concerns that they have raised on specific issues, and I shall deal with some of those specific concerns in a moment. However, I made it clear in Committee that we recognised the importance of getting the details of the universal credit right. We are working hard to do so in consultation with key stakeholders, and we are listening to their concerns.
	The Opposition amendments would pre-empt our considerations and tie the hands of this and any future Government with regard to areas of policy in which it is important to retain flexibility. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to say that as we reach a final conclusion on what is right, involving Members of all parties, the Work and Pensions Committee, organisations such as the Social Security Advisory Committee, and third-party groups, we will bring regulations to the House by the affirmative procedure. There can then be a full and proper debate in Committee and a vote on Floor of the House.

Chris Grayling: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was in the Chamber a moment ago when I answered question on child care from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), but the former seems to be forgetting the fact that there is no job search obligation for the lone parent of a child who is below school age. A job search requirement is made only when a child is at school, and the requirement is for a willingness to accept a reasonable job offer that fits around school hours. No draconian measure is waiting to hit a lone parent as their child grows older. Our system is pretty supportive, and we have been absolutely clear that child care costs will continue to be paid through the universal credit.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) must also understand that our nation’s resources are finite. We cannot just turn on the financial taps because we feel like it. We must take pragmatic decisions on what the nation can and cannot afford. We set out very clearly in our announcement last year that there is a £2 billion envelope to fund child care. Parliamentarians now need to agree how best to spend that money.

Chris Grayling: The answer is that we will do it as quickly as we possibly can. We are not in the business of delaying these things. We are doing the consultation on child care now, and I hope that we will reach a resolution in a relatively short space of time. However, I want to take the time to get it right. I do not want to rush through under an artificial timetable something that is not necessary right now. We are still two and a half years away from the introduction of new claims for the universal credit. We have got time to get these things right and we are trying to work with a fixed envelope of money for child care—we will talk about some of the other issues shortly. We want to take the time to look at the real costs of child care, the requirements and how we can best deploy the £2 billion available.

John McDonnell: I am not trying to catch the Minister out—I am trying but to secure clarity on each of these issues. What is an indicative timescale for addressing those anxieties, so that people can have some prospect of being able to calculate their futures in those areas?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The whole purpose of the universal credit is to provide assistance to people who are trying to get back to work and to ensure that work always pays. I hope that the women of Bridgend will benefit, like those across the country, from the introduction of the universal credit and the extra support that it will provide to ensure that they are better off in work.

Stephen Timms: The Minister made an important point a moment ago. He said that he agreed that support for free school schools and prescriptions should be tapered away. That is different from the proposal in the White Paper to have an income threshold and no support. Is that a change in Government thinking?

Sheila Gilmore: The debate we have had—in Committee and this evening—shows some of the pitfalls of saying, “We are going to simplify benefits.” The Minister and his colleagues have said to the country generally, “We're going to simplify benefits. This is a simpler system, so it must, by definition, be a good thing.” They expected and, indeed, got from many people the answer, “We agree that benefits should be simplified."” The problem is that when dealing with real people and real situations it all becomes much more complicated, as our debates tonight and on previous occasions have demonstrated quite clearly.
	The details of issues such as school meals, health charges and the even bigger matter of child care are extremely important, and will have a real impact on whether the new system works for people, will make them better off, and enables them to get into employment, stay in employment, improve their circumstances and get out of poverty. We all agree that, except for those who suffer from real and deep health problems, employment is the best way out of poverty. If, however, such an important element as child care is left so undefined, we cannot know the answer to that question.
	Frankly, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are told, “If you don’t accept it, don’t vote for it or don't agree with it, you are throwing over the whole issue of welfare reform.” I do not accept that. Nor do I accept the Minister’s view that he was given that sort of response by the previous Government and that there should be simply a framework—an empty bookcase, as he was wont to say in Committee—as there was before. It seems to me that if he thought it was wrong then—and it sounds as if he did—it may still be wrong now. As I said in Committee, people should not be asked to buy that empty bookcase without knowing whether it contains classics or cheap comics.

Sheila Gilmore: I shall try to unpack that question. First, it has almost been forgotten—I hope not entirely forgotten—that universal credit will be introduced after £18 billion has been cut from this country’s welfare spending, so many people will already be worse off before universal credit comes into effect. Secondly, we do not know when the transitional protection we keep hearing about will end. Will it end and begin only if somebody gets into work or falls out of work, or will there be other circumstances in which that transitional protection will cease, which would mean that many people would be considerably worse off? The third reason that I have concerns about the assertion that people will be better off under universal credit is to do with all the points raised in our discussion of these amendments. Unless we are clear about issues such as the cost of child care and school meals, and how they will be accounted for under universal credit, we cannot know whether the assumptions made, the figures given and the statements made about people being better off will prove to be true.

Sheila Gilmore: In answer to that, let me give a personal view that I would not want to attribute to all my colleagues, as I am unsure whether they would all accept it. If we feel that we can no longer pay child benefit as it was previously paid and that we must make savings, it would have been much fairer to have made that part of taxable income. For many reasons, that would have avoided some of the anomalies that the Government’s proposal has set up. However, we have frequently rehearsed those reasons, so I shall not spend a lot of time talking about them now. If savings had to be made, we might have ensured that some of that money came back as I have suggested. I personally think that, subject to a fair taxation system, that would be a better way of dealing with this issue than having the suggested abrupt cut-off.
	I want to talk about savings, and in particular the savings cap being introduced on people who work. It is astonishing that this change should be made by a Government who have so much to say about their wanting to encourage people to get back on their own feet, to be self-reliant and to save for their future. It is very easy just to say that the average amount of savings of a person of working age is only £300—and that is frightening and appalling for our society if it is true. However, for those people who currently—[Interruption.] I do not know what is so funny. Currently, people who have savings and receive tax credit have been able to get assistance without losing that money, but the Government’s view appears to be different for those who fall on hard times, no matter what their circumstances are, and no matter what situation they find themselves in. We will, no doubt, have this debate again on Wednesday when we discuss non-contributory and contributory employment and support allowances. The Government’s view seems to be that the first thing someone should call on in difficult circumstances is any savings that they have previously been able to make. There is a lot that is unacceptable about that.
	People may find themselves with a certain amount of capital in all sorts of circumstances. They may have gone through a recent separation and received their share of a former matrimonial home, which they may then plan to use to put a deposit down on another property so that they can buy a home and no longer be as dependent on the state as they have been previously. That opportunity is being taken away by this provision. It is not at all clear whether the Conservative party thought it was entirely unacceptable that people were able to receive tax credits and still have savings—presumably Conservative Members did think that, but I do not know whether they said so.
	We have had a system, which seems to have been working well, whereby people have been able to receive assistance to enable them to stay in employment and improve their circumstances without such loss of savings which they may have worked hard to accrue. They may have been asked to take reduced working hours, as many people have in the past two or three years, and they may have experienced a pay freeze and, thus, fallen, perhaps for the first time, into the position where they become entitled to universal credit. The first thing that will happen to them is that they will be told that they are not eligible until they have reduced their savings below a certain limit. Their prospects of using those savings, perhaps towards their retirement—these people may not be young, and they may be thinking that that money will give them a more comfortable retirement or they may want to buy a house to put themselves in a better position—are being taken from them. There is no good reason for changing the tax credit arrangements, which have been working well in getting people back into employment.

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. In addition to the financial considerations for women who are returning to work, there are great psychological concerns. Women ask whether the necessary quality of child care will be available, whether their family will adapt and whether they will cope with the separation from their child. Enabling people to be supported to take those first steps into work, even for a few hours, would help families overcome that barrier and, I hope, go on to increase their hours and ultimately go back into work full time.

Kate Green: I want to comment first on the proposed child care amendments. Owing to the funding envelope within which we work we face a difficult financial choice about which group of parents to assist with child care costs. I warmly welcome the implication in the comments of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). Obviously, one would want to support funding for child care as far as possible, and in making an early selection about which group of parents should benefit we do not want to shut off the possibility of financial support for child care for more parents being an aspiration over time.
	In saying that we wish to protect the child care support available for parents who work more than 16 hours, we are certainly not saying that we might not aspire in due course to see child care supported beyond that. The loss of financial support for child care will
	make working completely unviable and will be a dangerous and retrograde step that I do not believe Ministers have fully analysed.
	It is important that we do not see child care provision simply as instrumentalising the return of parents to paid employment. Nowhere in the debate today have we said much about the welfare of the child. We do not know what short hours child care, if any, will be available in the child care market. It certainly seems to be a complicated and unlikely form of child care for parents to be able to access and it does not reflect the way in which child care provision is currently organised. Of course, child care providers might respond if more parents were seeking to buy shorter hours of child care, but the question that arises is whether it is a financially viable model for providers. I am not aware of Ministers investigating that, and I would feel more reassured about the validity of their proposals if they had been able to say a little more about what they mean for the market, its resilience and its potential for growth.
	I would also have felt more reassured if Ministers had analysed the extent to which very short episodes of child care are or are not good for children. I genuinely do not know the answer, but I have a sense that putting a child in child care for two or three hours on two or three days a week presents an unstable stop-go approach. We certainly know that, for younger children, one-on-one care with a single main carer with whom the child can form a stable relationship is very important. Although I do not rule out the possibility that shorter episodes of child care could be good for children, I have not seen any sign that Ministers have investigated whether that is the case. It is extremely difficult for us to support a measure that has given no attention to the well-being of children.
	On the proposals—or lack of proposals—in relation to free school means, I do not blame Ministers for seeking to pass the problem to the Social Security Advisory Committee because it is an extremely difficult one to solve. The previous Government had been concerned about the cliff edge that exists as parents move off benefits and into employment and free school meals are removed wholesale. Parents have repeatedly told us as politicians that that is an incredible financial shock to low-income families as parents move into work. We have no idea what Ministers will propose in due course.
	We have been struggling to find the model that will work. Models have been bandied around that could leave parents able to afford school meals on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, but not on Thursday or Friday, or that might mean that they can afford school meals for some children in the family, but not for others. There is a real concern that what Ministers propose will still lead us to a cliff edge.
	We need to be clear about the principles that we seek to achieve. I would like absolute clarity from Ministers that when they receive the recommendations and advice of SSAC, they will ensure that support is available for all children who need free school meals; that the system that is put in place will be simple for families, simple for schools to administer and simple for the Government, too; that child health will not be compromised because children currently eligible for free school meals and therefore accessing a healthier diet are in future shut out of such provision; and that the design of the system will not create work disincentives.
	I have not yet seen any evidence that all those circles can easily be squared, unless Ministers are prepared to look again at the direction of travel that the Labour Government were following, which was, over time, to move towards extending the reach of free school meals. I accept that in the present financial climate it will be difficult to get all the way there, but Ministers need to think now about how they design the cliff edges and the tapers, because that is the foundation on which a future extension of free school meals to more children would be built.
	The most comprehensive option would be to include a per child school meal element in the universal credit, which crucially would be paid directly to schools to provide meals, so that parents were not—by force, in many cases—obliged to use the money to meet other bills. I would like us to consider how a model could be designed that, when funding allows, would allow the money to be paid in full until the family reached their earnings disregard level, at which stage it would be withdrawn from universal credit at the taper rate, which we would like to have been maintained at 65%. That would mean that both DWP and families were contributing to the cost of school meal expansion. Entitlement could end when universal credit payments end, preferably when the imputed value of the school meal had been fully tapered out.
	Achieving that vision immediately would undoubtedly create additional cost, which I recognise that Ministers want to avoid. Nevertheless, it is important that they give us assurances that they will seek at the outset to design a system that could be developed in that direction over time and as funding allows.
	Amendment 68 relates to carers. A small group of carers seems to have slipped the notice of Ministers when considering the impact of the design of universal credit, specifically in relation to earnings disregards. We know that many carers can work only a very small number of hours because they are seeking to balance paid employment with substantial caring responsibilities. We also know that those few hours of work are very precious to them. They enable them to maintain contact with the labour market, they widen their social and external circles, and they provide a bit of a respite for the carers from the stress and strain of caring.
	Where those carers are in receipt of income support, they can at present earn up to £20 a week from doing a few hours of paid employment without it affecting their benefit. In their proposals for universal credit, Ministers have provided for disregards for carers in a number of situations, but there seem to be some groups who will lose the benefit of that disregard as a result of the proposals before us. For example, some carers are caring for someone who does not live in the same home as the carer. Those carers may no longer enjoy the benefit of the earnings disregard. That seems completely at odds with the aspiration that Ministers have expressed for the universal credit, which is that every additional hour of work will pay.
	I hope that Ministers will give careful attention to amendment 68 and consider what can be done to ensure that all carers are incentivised to take on even a few hours of work. What assessment have Ministers made of the number of carers who are left outside the ambit
	of the current disregard for carers, and of the cost of extending such support to all carers?
	Finally, we cannot stress often enough how important it is that we ensure that payments for children go to the main carer of the child. Ministers seem to think it is good enough that couples have the option to make that decision, but very many families will, by default, allow all payments of universal credit to go to one member of a couple in a couple household, and we know from the evidence of the way in which the pension credit has been received in couple households that that is most likely to be the man.

Paul Uppal: I will modify my speech to highlight some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on new clause 6. That will be the beef of what I will say. We spoke about this issue at great length in Committee and I spoke about it personally. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), I feel like we are back in Committee. I assure the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West that it was always a pleasure to sit on that Committee, and I am sure that Opposition Members will concur.
	We received representations from various groups on the merits of paying housing benefit directly to landlords, principally from Citizens Advice, Crisis, the National Landlords Association, the Residential Landlords Association, Shelter and the British Property Federation. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said, and as was said in Committee, there are persuasive arguments about paying housing benefit directly to landlords. It is perhaps ironic that it was the last Labour Government who changed the system in 2008. Before that, rental payments did go directly to landlords.
	As was rightly said in an earlier exchange, the Minister has highlighted that there is provision in the Bill for paying housing benefit directly:
	“We recognise that in some circumstances, direct payments to landlords may be necessary, and the Bill makes provision for that.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 5 April 2011; c. 363.]
	I hope that that gives the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West some comfort on his specific concerns. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I am pre-empting his response, but we discussed this matter at length in Committee.
	I think that there is a deeper point on the issue of responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition raised this issue this morning as the cornerstone of his speech. I do not want to go over what has been said too much. The essence of my point is that it is easy to talk about responsibility, but the Government are actually delivering on it. I have my concerns about the payment of housing benefit, but having sat on the Committee, looked at the findings of the reports and considered the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that if we are sincere about the aim of this Bill of getting people off benefit and into work, the first step is not only getting people into work, but individuals taking responsibility. The concerns underlying new clause 6 are addressed by the Minister’s remark that the whole essence of the Bill is to tackle the issue of responsibility.
	I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were as enthralled as I by the exchange involving the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy, for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) about the number of people who have not worked in the past 10 years—a time of plenty compared with the situation that we face now. The point that was missed in that exchange was the pernicious nature and corrosive effect of what we have seen over the past few years; this is not just about getting people into work. We have arrived at a situation in which not only are there people who have never worked, but there are whole families who have never worked. The exchange missed that point, but it was eloquently covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy.

Charlie Elphicke: I rise to speak against new clause 2. One of the major achievements of the reform of introducing universal credit is enabling people to have greater flexibility in taking on part-time jobs—so-called mini-jobs. I have made the point several times in interventions that it is critical that we enable people with child care responsibilities to have the maximum flexibility in how they organise their child care and for how long they wish to work, so that they are reintroduced to the world of work.
	I praise the Government particularly for making the effort to consult all parties in their recent seminar. It was not just members of the Public Bill Committee who were there, but members of the Work and Pensions Committee. Such engagement is important, because it enables us to get everything right. The Government have introduced a Bill that is a bookcase into which the books will later be slotted, and they are making an effort to ensure that the books read well and effectively.
	One of the most telling parts of the briefing that we were given in the seminar was about what parents had told the DWP that they wanted. It informs the decision on whether new clause 2 is right. The DWP publication—“briefing” is probably a better description—is entitled “Childcare support in Universal Credit” and dated May 2011. It states:
	“Recent findings from a survey of lone parents on Income support and with a child aged 5-6 found a strong preference for working part-time.”
	Among those looking for work or expecting to do so in future, the majority stated a preference for 16 to 29 hours’ work a week, with 45% giving a preference of exactly 16 hours. Why exactly 16 hours? It has been drummed into everyone that they have to go out and work for 16 hours, not a moment less, or they will not get any help with child care. Subsection (5) of new clause 2 makes it clear that the Opposition want that prescribed minimum number of hours a week to remain. In other words, they do not want the mini-job, and yet we know that lone parents show a strong preference for working part time, which should be respected. People are not here to dance to the Government’s tune: Governments should dance to the tune of the people, and be as flexible, helpful and enabling as people wish.

Charlie Elphicke: I do not make my money out of campaigning, and I never have. Anyone who has done that will know that maximum fear is the way to get the most subscriptions, the largest membership and the highest amount in grants. I make my money out of my only job, which is serving my 71,000 or so constituents and trying to do what is best.
	Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I occasionally open the Budget Red Book and look at the detailed figures. Table A2 on page 80 makes it clear that a lone parent with one child working 35 hours a week would have £105 without universal credit, and more or less the same with it. However, when parents work 10 hours, things change. A lone parent working 10 hours rises receives £20 without universal credit, and £53 with it. If we move to universal credit, those people will end up, broadly, with more money. That mini-job is massively incentivised by universal credit, which makes part-time working much easier.
	Why does part-time working matter, and why should we give greater incentives for it? To answer that, we must look at the proportion of parents with child care responsibilities who are in work. Some 61% of lone parents who have children aged between five and six, who would find things difficult under new clause 2(5), work part time, as do 64% of partnered mothers of children of that age: 64% of all mothers work part time. The statistics are pretty clear that we have had a joint working revolution: there is much more sharing of economic power in couples, and more pooling of income. To a great extent, universal credit recognises that in the system.
	There has also been a revolution involving women in the workplace. Often they work part time, because even now there is a bias towards women having primary responsibility for child care. Finances might be shared, but the responsibility for child care tends to fall to women. That is what comes out pretty clearly from the figures. For that reason, we should allow women maximum flexibility. Why have a 16-hour cut-off, as new clause 2(5) proposes? I, for one, cannot agree with that. It is not the right way to go; it is a retrograde step.

Charlie Elphicke: I would hope so. New clause 2(1) mentions
	“a childcare element for claimants who are in work, except in prescribed circumstances.”
	One of the problems with the current system is that 52,000 families already in receipt of tax credits are entitled to, but did not claim, the child care element in 2008-09, whereas 55,000 families were entitled to the child care element but did not claim tax credits in the same period. We need to ensure that real help is available for children. The universal credit will ensure that we do not have thousands of families who do not receive their full entitlement. That is a really important aspect of the Bill.
	I am not sure that new clause 2 is the right way forward. I am concerned that it would cost the vast extra sum of £400 million in Government spending. It would be expensive, but retrograde, and it would make life harder for those who want to be in part-time work.
	My other concern about the new clause is that the maximum award for the child care element is far higher than was set out in the consultation document. I can only assume that in drafting it the Opposition thought, “What high figure can we come up with that will be a substantial number so we can appear to our constituents to be much more generous in spending other people’s money?” That is not a sensible approach. The right approach is to have the consultation that the Government are having so that the book, when it is written, is slotted into the bookcase and is as effective as possible.
	The Government have made a real effort to make strides on this issue and they have come up with a really great plan. They have also gone to considerable lengths to put up various options for discussion. Nowhere in new clause 2 does it canvass the possibility of a different rate for children under five, although the Government have canvassed that possibility. Nowhere does the new clause mention the differences between what people would get with 70% child care costs and with 80% child care costs: it just assumes that the figure should be 80% or 90%—figures that, on the face of it, appear to have been plucked out of the air. Nowhere does the new clause discuss the working of the hours rules, which would create great problems especially for lone parents and the parents of the youngest children who are just starting to find their way back into work. We must support them in going back into the workplace. That is
	the sort of discussion that we should be having, and I would hope that the Opposition would work positively with the Government to try to achieve a system that works for everyone.
	These reforms are important because we need to reduce child poverty. In recent years, the figures have not been pointing in the right direction, if one includes after-housing costs. I will be challenged and told that that is the wrong figure to use and that I should use before-housing costs, but as I said in Committee people have to live somewhere. We cannot expect them to live in a garden shed or on a remote Hebridean island at very low expense where perhaps they could find shelter and the odd sheep. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is no longer in her place, nodded in Committee when I said that this was the right measure.
	In 2004-05, some 3.6 million children were below the 60% median for after-housing costs and now it is 3.8 million. I regard that figure as worrying in terms of the mischief that the universal credit and new clause 2 are aimed at combating. The Government’s plans would substantially reduce child poverty. New clause 2 and the Government’s plans are presumably aimed in the same direction, but the latter would reduce child poverty by at least 50,000 in 2011-12. I see that as a positive move. I asked the Secretary of State today about the effect of universal credit on poverty and he said that 90,000 fewer people would be in poverty. That is the right direction.
	The Opposition have tabled amendments 23 and 24, which propose that the prescribed maximum should be £50,000. In other words, if someone has £50,000 in the bank but their earnings are very low, they will be able to claim under universal credit. Earlier, I put an example to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). If a person earns £50,000, has no savings—probably a young person—and pays tax, they will be subsidising an older person on lower earnings but with £50,000 in the bank. If we asked people in the street whether that was really justifiable, they would say no. The reason we save is to have a rainy day fund. The whole idea of such a fund is that when it rains, we should spend it—because we believe in taking responsibility for ourselves.
	Today, the Leader of the Opposition gave a little speech about responsibility. He said:
	“Labour—a party founded by hard working people for hard working people—was seen, however unfairly, as the party of those ripping off our society. My party must change.”
	But I looked at the amendments and saw that Labour wants to give benefits to people who have £50,000 in the bank. Are we being ripped off? Is that a party that believes that hard work brings rewards and in responsibility, in a messianic conversion, or is it a party that simply wants to hand out other people’s money like confetti?
	I read on in the speech and I realised that the amendments had been tabled for the sake of a sound bite. The Leader of the Opposition said:
	“Just take their current welfare reform bill.
	It punishes people in work who save, denying them the help they currently get through tax credits.”
	Well, there is saving and there is saving, and if we polled people I am sure that we would find conclusively that someone with £50,000 in the bank should not get any out-of-work benefits. They should take responsibility and seek to get back into work as quickly as possible.

Charlie Elphicke: If we asked the person in the street, “Do you think that benefits, even universal credit benefits, should be paid to someone who has got £50,000 in the bank?”, they would give us a pretty robust response. I represent a constituency with a lot of deprivation. Average earnings are about £20,000 a year—£50,000 is a king’s ransom to the people whom I serve. Most people could never dream of having so much money in cash. They might have it locked up in their house, but they could never dream of having that kind of money in ready cash. It would be an astonishing position to be in. If I went down Dover high street and said, “Do you think that people should get universal credit if they have £50,000 in the bank?”, the response would be demonstrative, pretty conclusive and probably pretty rude—it would be expletive-laden.
	In my constituency, when I knock on a door, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), and say, “What are your concerns?”, after expressing vehement concerns about the number of overseas visitors, 1 million of whom have taken jobs in recent years, and about the 5 million people who could work but do not, people move on and say, “And that person down the street has a plasma TV and so on, and they have not worked a day in their lives.” We have discussed this important and serious issue. We need to encourage people to take responsibility and to work, and not encourage them through amendments such as amendments 23 and 24, which would allow people to claim benefits despite having £50,000 in the bank.
	This whole strand of thinking is symptomatic of a way of thinking that has caused the number of working-age people in relative poverty, after housing costs, to rise from 6.5 million in 2001-02 to 7.9 million in 2009-10. That is a staggering rise. We have to bear it in mind that in those years this country enjoyed the most massive boom, yet a whole load of our countrymen slipped further into relative poverty. It is not just a question of intergenerational poverty or of households that have not worked for ever and ever; it is a question of going
	into relative poverty. The message sent by amendments 23 and 24 is not one of responsibility. It is not a message that says, “Look, we are on your side. You’re hard-working. We will support you.” The message sent by the philosophy of universal credit is one of responsibility: “If you work hard, you will be better off, and you will not be subjected to the dependency culture.” That has to be one of the most important and essential messages that the Government can send, and it is why the Bill will, in my view, be the most important Bill in this Parliament.
	I hope that the House will indulge me on one more amendment—amendment 33, which deals with pensions. If a man aged 66 is married to a woman aged 45, how can it be fine for that woman not to be incentivised to work? I am deeply troubled by this. I put this issue to the right hon. Member for East Ham, and the Minister asked him whether he supported the principle, and thrice the cock crowed, yet he would not deny it—or, indeed, not deny it. It was wrong to table an amendment defending that principle, and to say, when an argument was made saying, “How can it be right?”, “Ah well, isn’t it bad of the Government to sneak it into a schedule.”
	The House deserves a better argument than that for why previously people were not incentivised to work, and why the Government are wrong to take action on it. The Government are right to take action, and they are right to send the message that work should always pay, and that, if someone is of working age, they really should work. We have a massive mountain to climb: there are 5 million people in this country who could work but do not, who have been encouraged to live in a dependency culture, and who would be worse off if they went into work. There is much evidence that that sucked in 1 million people from abroad and overseas to fill the 1 million or so jobs created during the recent boom, while we cast 5 million people on to the slagheap of welfare dependency.
	I suspect strongly that encouraging the 5 million people who could work but do not, and making work pay for them, will solve the problem of people being sucked into the UK from overseas. The problem might well solve itself, however, through a demand for employment from our countrymen. When that day comes, and if universal credit achieves it, it will be a great day for this country. It is fundamentally wrong that we should sell the pass on the hopes and aspirations of millions of people in this country who could be working, achieving and fulfilling their potential, but who for too many years have been thrown on the slagheap of hopelessness, dependency and failure. I am a Tory because I like people to succeed; I like people to do well; I want people to make money; I want them to be rich; I want them to be captains of industry; and I want the economy to grow even quicker, and I think that the universal credit is the way to help more people to achieve and succeed in their hopes and aspirations, to get into work and to do really well.

Maria Miller: It is absolutely not fair that we have 1 million spare bedrooms being paid for by housing benefit. It is not right—many taxpayers would never be able to afford a spare bedroom in their properties—nor is it fair for those living in overcrowded or poor housing conditions, waiting for long periods for the opportunity to live in a home that is decent or that actually reflects the size of their family. I would ask the hon. Lady to consider that.
	Amendment 32 would provide an exemption from the social sector size criteria measure for disabled people living in adapted accommodation. The intention is to ensure that where people have significant or extensive adaptations, they do not have to move and have a new property adapted, which would result in additional costs. I assure the House that I fully understand those arguments. I agree that it might not make sense to move someone from their home if they have already had significant adaptations. Replicating such changes would impose unnecessary costs. We are not interested in shifting costs from one budget to another. However, as we previously set out, we cannot take the broad-brush approach that amendment 32 would allow for. The amendment talks about a property that is
	“specially adapted or particularly suited to…the needs of that person.”
	This means that the provision would be drawn very widely drawn indeed, covering any adaptations.
	Some adaptations, such as a handrail in a bath, may be so minor that exempting the tenant on the basis of that adaptation alone would simply not be justifiable. The provision would also cover a property that had been adapted for someone’s past needs, and would require local authorities to exempt those whose accommodation was particularly suited to meet their needs—perhaps those in a ground-floor flat or a property with a limited number of stairs to climb. We do not have the data on how many such cases there are, but it seems likely that many would fall into such a broad category. Again, that would prove very expensive—something that the hon. Member for Westminster North seemed to ignore. It is not clear what evidence would be required or who would be responsible for the decision. The amendment refers to the provision of
	“certificates, documents, information or evidence”,
	which, as the hon. Member for Westminster North said, also suggests a degree of administrative intervention. She made a valid point in Committee, but I am surprised that she is pushing it even further. I think that many stakeholders would rightly be concerned about the potential cost of her proposals and about the additional burdens such bureaucracy could load on to landlords and others.
	The National Housing Federation estimates that about 108,000 tenants in adapted accommodation are likely to be affected by the introduction of the size criteria to restrict housing benefit. The NHF has kindly shared its data with us and I understand that our officials have met the federation since Committee and are continuing to explore the data in some detail. However, as well as looking at the available data, we want to talk to housing providers, but that will take some more time.
	Funding for adaptations can come from a number of sources, one of which is the disabled facilities grant. Some 44,000 awards were made in 2009-10 in England and the average award was some £7,000. However, many of these are paid to owner-occupiers, not to those living in social rented houses. Research published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005 showed that about 70% of all adaptations were for less than £1,000 and that only 19% were wholly funded from the disabled facilities grant. In England, the maximum grant is £30,000, but there are discretionary powers to enable local authorities to meet costs in excess of that. Adaptations of this magnitude would be substantial, potentially involving the construction of a single-storey or double-bedroom extension, together perhaps with the installation of a toilet or en-suite shower. Figures from the same source indicate an average cost of about £2,000 for the installation of a stairlift. We will consider the evidence further, but it is important for the House to look at the facts and realise that many of these adaptations are at a much lower level than the hon. Lady indicated in her comments.
	As I said in Committee,
	“it is not our intention to put something in place that would have a disproportionate impact on disabled people. If someone has had their property adapted because of their disability, it makes no sense to move them to a different property and spend more money on costly adaptations.”
	I concluded that a “blanket exemption” was not the best approach and that we would need to consider
	“how we can best target the help at people, while keeping in mind the practical difficulties of identifying… where accommodation has been adapted”.––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 May 2011; c. 687.]
	We acknowledge the concerns that have been highlighted, but this amendment goes much further than was suggested even by the sector itself. I hope that, in the light of my comments, hon. Members will look again at the amendments and agree to withdraw them.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No.83E).

Amendment made: 18,page44,line48, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 26 (parliamentary control), in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
	“(aa) the first regulations under section 11D(2)(d) or 11J,”.’—(Chris Grayling.)
	Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—( Miss  Chloe  Smith .)
	Bill to be further  considered tomorrow .

Edward Davey: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for raising the matter and for the way she has done so. I hope that I will be able to give her some satisfaction on the points she wants the Government to address. Before doing so, it is important that I state for the record the legislative background to drug testing in the workplace.
	Employers have a general duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees. They also have a duty under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to assess risks to the health and safety of their employees. If they knowingly allow an employee under the influence of drugs to continue working and his or her behaviour places themselves or others at risk, the employers could be prosecuted. Their employees are also required to take reasonable care of themselves and others who could be affected by what they do at work.
	The Transport and Works Act 1992 made it a criminal offence for certain workers to be unfit through drugs and/or drink while working on railways, tramways and other guided transport systems. The operators of those transport system would also be guilty of an offence
	unless they had shown all due diligence in trying to prevent such an offence from being committed. The Road Traffic Act 1988 states that any person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs shall be guilty of an offence. The principal legislation for controlling the misuse of drugs is, of course, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Nearly all drugs with misuse and/or dependence liability are covered by it.
	Therefore, there is a legislative framework which makes it clear that employers have a duty to ensure that they look after the health and safety of their workers. There are several codes of practice to assist employers in this, most notably a free booklet published by the Health and Safety Executive, “Drug Misuse at Work”, which mentions a number of related matters, including drug screening, which is what concerns my hon. Friend.
	My hon. Friend will know that I cannot comment on the individual case, but the main thrust of her speech related to how drug testing is carried out. My Department is responsible for the sole Government-recognised UK national accreditation body, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. UKAS operates accreditation as a public authority activity, as required by European legislation. It has a strong international reputation for the quality and rigour of its accreditation assessments and is itself regularly assessed by its peers.
	UKAS accredits laboratories when required to do so by legislation or when voluntarily requested to do so by
	a laboratory. Accreditation is an assessment and attestation that a laboratory is competent to undertake specified conformity assessments. International standards exist to cover the collection of samples, and UKAS is happy to accredit against those standards. My Department works closely with UKAS and has full confidence in its work.
	My hon. Friend raised the specific case of her constituent, as well as making a wider point. I am happy to ask UKAS to work alongside the Health and Safety Executive to improve the HSE’s guidance on drug misuse at work and to expand the guidance coverage to include the complete drugs testing life cycle from the collection of a sample to its testing. I think that that was the point that she was seeking to make, particularly when she talked about the integrity of the collection process and the chain of custody. I hope that my officials will talk to UKAS and the HSE to ensure that the guidance can be improved in the way she mentioned. I agree that this is not an area in which new regulation is needed. Having listened to the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, I believe that we can deal with the concerns, which she rightly raised, through Government guidance. I hope that she will be satisfied with this response, but if, on reflection, she has any further questions, I would be very happy to deal with them personally if she writes to me.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.